Re: GFDL
MJ Ray said on Thu, May 06, 2004 at 11:37:26PM +0100,:
> What did you read?
The various documentation from the FSF.
> Did you obtain it directly from FSF?
No. I found all this in a Debian Woody CD From a friend.
> been less or more enlightening if you had the freedom to edit it?
I would have got a very different idea about freedom if this friend
had changed either the FSF's `political speech', or the Debian PM or
DFSG and whatever else is in doc-debian and allied packages. That this
friend had the freedom to modify the latter, but did not, is a
different issue altogether.
> Maybe their aim is noble, but I believe their method is wrong. This
My point is that it is not a question of `wrong' and `right'; just a
different way of solving issues.
> weapon proliferation causes peace (because everyone is too scared
> to attack each other) or danger (because there is more chance of a
> mistake). How far should we restrict people's freedom in order to
> promote freedom?
You have a point here.
> feel that the FSF does not currently represent my view on software
Which is what the whole issue is about. FSF says `documentation is not
software'. Debian says `whatever we carry in our CDs is software'.
The problem for experienced users and advocates of the free software
philosophy, like me (I'm speaking for myself *only*, as an individual,
and not as a lawyer, which is what I do for a living) is that if
Debian takes out what is `free documentation' for the FSF we loose a
potent tool for spreading the concept.
I would never have understood the real meaning of `free software' if
the FSF's messages were not carried in a *Debian* CD, and I read them
side-by-side with the documents in /usr/share/doc/*debian*.
Does debian really want to deny future newbies a good intro to what
free software is by taking out all this political speech from the
/usr/share/doc?
And all this `political speech' is very different and has to be
treated differently from other `do not modify' documents like RFCs.
I am reading this list for about two years now, and understand why
Debian does not want invariant sections, (and also other issues with
the GFDL). But I also understand the FSF's perspective; and the point
is that both are right, in their own way.
> This is worrying, but not insurmountable.
Yes. And somebody tells me that there was a meeting of this committee
last month. And there was some progress on this issue.
--
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,
'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,
Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,
Kerala, India.
http://paivakil.port5.com
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+
Reply to:
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: GFDL
- From: Glenn Maynard <g_deb@zewt.org>
- Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>
- Re: GFDL
- From: Nathanael Nerode <neroden@twcny.rr.com>
- References:
- Re: GFDL
- From: "Mahesh T. Pai" <paivakil@vsnl.net>
- Re: GFDL
- From: MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com>